Your website isn’t going to look 100% the same in all browsers on all operating systems.
I don't know where this one comes from, a good designer knows about style resets to reset browsers to a common ground. As well with the JavaScript toolkits like Dojo and jQuery, there are a lot of off the shelf widgets that look exactly the same in all of the major browsers. I don't agree with this suggestion and think that you should actually be looking for a designer who can provide the same look across browsers.
Well yes that is a given that it will not look the same on Lynx. Most would assume that when a designer says "look the same" they generally refer to the top browsers and 2 to 3 versions back. It is pretty much a given that you are not going to get it to look the same on IE 5 or FF 2.
But you bring up a good point, designers should be specific with their client as to what browsers the design will look right in and the steps taken to deal with the ones that it wont.
At this point I'm going to assume you didn't actually read the article, because the article mentions this.
From the article:
Look for: “Your site will look great in modern browsers and degrade gracefully while retaining functionality on older browsers.”
Avoid: “All of my sites look perfect in all browsers, back to NSCA Mosaic”
Yes, if you must know, I have dyslexia some times my brain can miss a sentence in a paragraph. Feel free to down vote the original comment if it is an issue.
That certainly sucks but it in no way negates the fact that you commented specifically on the part of the article you claim not to have comprehended. I don't have dyslexia and I miss words, sentences and paragraphs too.
I have no specific requirement to know details of your medical conditions, just a comment like "sorry, I missed that sentence" would be fine with no further explanation.
"Style resets" – I wish it was that simple. Sure you can get the same look by using lot of images (versus pure-css styling) etc., but then you loose all the benefits of vector-based graphics and/or fluid/elastic layouts.
Good designer informs the client that focusing on "pixel perfectness" is old-way thinking (from print media) and nowdays a graceful degradation is considered more important. The client may better accept that not every little shadow-effect shows in IE, when they are told the true price of the required extra work.
This is pretty simplistic and boils down to: don't hire super hungry, and over compensating noobs.
What about the evaluation of web designers who are either competent but lousy workers, or even those able to feign some level of sophistication and competence?
"You should never allow anyone to put their own branding on your web presence. ... Most designers, once they ask for this, will allow you to decline, but the mere suggestion is an indicator of shaky practices."
Why? Many things in daily use do carry the name of their creator on them.
13 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 42.2 ms ] threadI don't know where this one comes from, a good designer knows about style resets to reset browsers to a common ground. As well with the JavaScript toolkits like Dojo and jQuery, there are a lot of off the shelf widgets that look exactly the same in all of the major browsers. I don't agree with this suggestion and think that you should actually be looking for a designer who can provide the same look across browsers.
But you bring up a good point, designers should be specific with their client as to what browsers the design will look right in and the steps taken to deal with the ones that it wont.
From the article:
Look for: “Your site will look great in modern browsers and degrade gracefully while retaining functionality on older browsers.” Avoid: “All of my sites look perfect in all browsers, back to NSCA Mosaic”
The section you chose to comment on!?
I have no specific requirement to know details of your medical conditions, just a comment like "sorry, I missed that sentence" would be fine with no further explanation.
That said, thanks for the courtesy of explaining.
Actually I did read the article, but I must have missed or forgotten the details of that section
I thought that is what I said before.
Good designer informs the client that focusing on "pixel perfectness" is old-way thinking (from print media) and nowdays a graceful degradation is considered more important. The client may better accept that not every little shadow-effect shows in IE, when they are told the true price of the required extra work.
What about the evaluation of web designers who are either competent but lousy workers, or even those able to feign some level of sophistication and competence?
Why? Many things in daily use do carry the name of their creator on them.
Indeed and I often come across fantastic inspiring sites via footer credits.